The use of robotics in otolaryngology–head and neck surgery: a systematic review

Maan, Zeshaan N.; Gibbins, N.; Al-Jabri, Talal; D’Souza, Alwyn

doi:10.1016/j.amjoto.2011.04.003

Cited by 42 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Having the duties of the team defined and standardised can also enable 'parallel-tasking', where key tasks take place concurrently. By reducing unnecessary waiting periods, this is thought to increase safety and efficiency and again contribute to reduced operation duration (Maan et al 2012). It is argued that the effectiveness of this strategy is dependent on having an enthusiastic team, which is motivated to learn its tasks and perform them efficiently (Payne and Pitter 2011), and presumably on frequency of robotic operations; if teams do not get to practise what they have learnt through repeated, frequent operations, it will be harder to establish a routinised way of working.…”

Section: What Strategies Might Reduce Operation Duration?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Embedding robotic surgery into routine practice and impacts on communication and decision making: a review of the experience of surgical teams

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While an increasing number of healthcare providers are purchasing surgical robots because of anticipated improvements in patient outcomes, their implementation into practice is highly variable. In robotic surgery, the surgeon is physically separated from the patient and the rest of the team with the potential to impact communication and decision making in the operating theatre and subsequently patient safety. Drawing on the approach of realist evaluation, in this article we review reports of the experience of surgical teams that have introduced robotic surgery to identify how and in what contexts robotic surgery is successfully integrated into practice and how and in what contexts it affects communication and decision making. Our analysis indicates that, while robotic surgery might bring about a number of benefits, it also creates new challenges. Robotic surgery is associated with increased operation duration, which has implications for patient safety, but strategies to reduce it can be effective with appropriate support from hospital administration and nursing management. The separation of the surgeon from the team can compromise communication but may be overcome through use of standardised communication. While surgeon situation awareness may be affected by the separation, the ergonomic benefits of robotic surgery may reduce stress and tiredness and enhance surgeon decision making. Our review adds to the existing literature by revealing strategies to support the introduction of robotic surgery and contextual factors that need to be in place for these to be effective.

show abstract

Section: What Strategies Might Reduce Operation Duration?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Embedding robotic surgery into routine practice and impacts on communication and decision making: a review of the experience of surgical teams

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…147 The scrub practitioner and circulating practitioner need to acquire new skills and need to learn their part in draping and docking the robot, how to change instruments, and troubleshooting. 164,165 The first assistant will need to learn all of this, as well as have an understanding of basic laparoscopic surgery. Specific training for first assistants, involving dry-laboratory training, personal instruction sessions, videos and surgery observation, was described.…”

Section: A Realist Review Of Stakeholders' Theoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A realist process evaluation of robot-assisted surgery: integration into routine practice and impacts on communication, collaboration and decision-making

Randell

Honey

Hindmarsh

et al. 2017

Health Serv Deliv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Health Services and Delivery ResearchISSN 2050-4349 (Print) ISSN 2050-4357 (Online) This journal is a member of and subscribes to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (www.publicationethics.org/).Editorial contact: journals.library@nihr.ac.ukThe full HS&DR archive is freely available to view online at www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hsdr. Print-on-demand copies can be purchased from the report pages of the NIHR Journals Library website: www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk Criteria for inclusion in the Health Services and Delivery Research journalReports are published in Health Services and Delivery Research (HS&DR) if (1) they have resulted from work for the HS&DR programme or programmes which preceded the HS&DR programme, and (2) they are of a sufficiently high scientific quality as assessed by the reviewers and editors. HS&DR programmeThe Health Services and Delivery Research (HS&DR) programme, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), was established to fund a broad range of research. It combines the strengths and contributions of two previous NIHR research programmes: the Health Services Research (HSR) programme and the Service Delivery and Organisation (SDO) programme, which were merged in January 2012.The HS&DR programme aims to produce rigorous and relevant evidence on the quality, access and organisation of health services including costs and outcomes, as well as research on implementation. The programme will enhance the strategic focus on research that matters to the NHS and is keen to support ambitious evaluative research to improve health services.For more information about the HS&DR programme please visit the website: http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hsdr This reportThe research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HS&DR programme or one of its preceding programmes as project number 12/5005/04. The contractual start date was in September 2013. The final report began editorial review in September 2016 and was accepted for publication in February 2017. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HS&DR editors and production house have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors' report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the final report document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HS&DR programme or the Department of Health. If there are verbatim quotations included in this publication the views and opinions expressed by the interviewees are those of the interviewees and do not necessarily reflect those of the authors, those of the NHS, the NIHR, NETSCC, the HS&DR programme or the Department...

show abstract

“…With a high initial cost for equipment and training, the necessity to replace proprietary instrumentation for continued use is even more worrying to some. 15 While these costs are theoretically offset by the decreased operating room time, shorter length of hospital stay, and lower readmission and complication rates, to our knowledge, no large-scale cost analysis studies have been performed to date. 15 However, of the 25% of US hospitals that own a da Vinci Surgical System, an estimated 65% of departments do not use the available technology.…”

Section: Research Original Investigation Transoral Robotic-assisted Lmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…15 While these costs are theoretically offset by the decreased operating room time, shorter length of hospital stay, and lower readmission and complication rates, to our knowledge, no large-scale cost analysis studies have been performed to date. 15 However, of the 25% of US hospitals that own a da Vinci Surgical System, an estimated 65% of departments do not use the available technology. 16 This speaks to the need for proper hospital selection-namely, large, referral-based tertiary care centers that will generate the caseload to make this expensive technology an economically sound investment.…”

Section: Research Original Investigation Transoral Robotic-assisted Lmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…10,11 Two patients in our cohort who underwent lingual tonsillectomy for obstructive sleep apnea had a postoperative polysomnogram that showed resolution of obstruction and an apnea-hypopnea index within normal limits. The 3-dimensional endoscopic view, 12 freedom of motion of microinstruments, and filtering of tremor are wellestablished advantages of robotic surgery for head and neck cases. 7,[12][13][14] With respect to performing lingual tonsillectomy, the surgical robot allows the creation of a clean dissection plane, which provides unmatched exposure of the tongue base musculature.…”

Section: Research Original Investigation Transoral Robotic-assisted Lmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Transoral Robotic-Assisted Lingual Tonsillectomy in the Pediatric Population

Leonardis

Duvvuri

Mehta

2013

JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The use of robotics in otolaryngology–head and neck surgery: a systematic review

Cited by 42 publications

References 45 publications

Embedding robotic surgery into routine practice and impacts on communication and decision making: a review of the experience of surgical teams

Embedding robotic surgery into routine practice and impacts on communication and decision making: a review of the experience of surgical teams

A realist process evaluation of robot-assisted surgery: integration into routine practice and impacts on communication, collaboration and decision-making

Transoral Robotic-Assisted Lingual Tonsillectomy in the Pediatric Population

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About